Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[Rusty Nails]

Well that's one vote he can't count on. He's doomed.

 

[briantrumpet]

Well that's one vote he can't count on. He's doomed.

If it were a choice between him, Mahmood, Lowe, and Farage, he'd get my vote.

 

[icowden]

I wouldn’t vote for Polanski to chair our charity far less an opposition party and even less to lead the country.
And I have nothing in principle against the Greens, if they have solid policies.

Because?

 

[Pblakeney]

Because?

He’s yet another populist politician going against a lot of (in this case) Green traditional policies.
You can’t change anything if you are not in power, fine. But you can’t be trusted either.

 

[First Aspect]

Yup, it's his tendency to lie about his past that bothers me. He's been neither a Red Cross spokesman nor has he worked for the Ministry of Justice. His starter for 10 the great houseboat controversy was also a flat out lie that unravelled in less time than it takes to say land ahoy.

It's a very bad sign that he either is so naive that he thinks this sort of thing will fly, or that these might be only the things he is lying about that have been noticed. Worse still, like Boris, he simply might be incapable of not doing it.

(I reckon BJ has a mental condition whereby he lies for no reason because he gets a buzz out of getting away with it - a form of addiction if you will).

 

[monkers]

He’s yet another populist politician

Yes, he campaigned for the role on the basis that he would use a populist but not nationalist approach. The membership figures, and the election results both show that his approach has moved the party from what many saw as a campaign group (a survey somewhere showed that too many people muddled Greenpeace with the Green Party, and wondered why a global environmental charity were campaigning for parliament in the UK. That position has more or less been corrected.

going against a lot of (in this case) Green traditional policies.

Examples? As leader he would quickly be called to account by the part if this is the case. The GP has always allowed prospective parliamentary candidates to hold an opinion that does not align with the membership opinion. The requirement is that they must state the party position, their own position, and the reason for any difference in opinion. Wouldn't you favour that that for all politicians in all parties?

You can’t change anything if you are not in power, fine.

Not acually true, but it does become true when people are denied their fundamental rights to speak truth to power, and to protest - rights that have been reduced by recent governments of both stripes.

But you can’t be trusted either.

He has exaggerated, just as the claims against him are exaggerated and being made out by you.

Part of Zack's failure is to apologise rather than resist the lies and exaggerations made out against him, such as this boob whisperer nonsense.